Debate Report #2
On December 12th, Mary, Michaela and Ilayda argued that he was and while they fought very hard to sway the judges; Jenn Yannick and Nick, they couldn’t quite beat out their opposition. Jessica, Melissa and Kelsey, the negative side, used the sympathetic approach to explain that the Hamlet (or Paul, as he was to be called in this debate) simply had so many traumatic experiences and they simply took a toll on him. Enhancing their negativity to Hamlet’s so-called craziness, Jessica, Melissa and Kelsey all dressed up as the Phantom of the Opera, Elphaba and Zorro. This gave them extra points and aided in their winning of the debate.
During the rebuttal, the affirmative side, especially Mary, called out as many logical fallacies as they could. Probably none of them were missed. There was a hasty generalization when the negative side used the argument of “many people” without statistics from anywhere. They went on to say refute the previous argument made, and that people can still become mentally ill (in this case crazy) when they have had horrible events happen to them or around them. The negative side went on to explain that they were aware that facts had not been given, and that it had merely been a thesis that had been stated--not proof. This was interesting, as most people would deny the fact that there was no real information, or that it was information. The rebuttals from both sides were handled very well.
The affirmative side, in their next argument gave the description of what medical illness was—and what was covered under that definition. This argument was used in what seemed like a bit of begging the question, as that point was used over and over against most of the negative side’s arguments. Many of the different types of mental illnesses were described and it was pointed out how Hamlet fit into many of the categories. However, not all mental illnesses mean that one is crazy. Using many quotes from the play, the negative side went on to explain how the one person in the play who would want to call him crazy, didn’t.
The ghost in the play, argued the affirmative side, was never proved to be real. They argued that it Hamlet really just imagined it in his delirium and that the guards there were just too scared to disagree with him. This became a hot topic to discuss during the rebuttals and the free-for-all. The free-for-all was again dominated mainly by one person, Mary this time. It again also included a lot of yelling. The negative side’s conclusion was quite amusing, but made a good point when Jessica mentioned that Melissa rambled on, as Hamlet did and she definitely is not crazy.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Could Shakespearian Tragedy Be Better Than Modern Tragedy?
Debate Report #1
Could Shakespearian Tragedy Be Better Than Modern Tragedy?
In the early afternoon of December 11th, it was proven that newer isn’t always better; the modern tragedy was declared second best to its Shakespearian counterpart in what turned out to be a strong and loud offense from Steph Boucher, Stephanie MacDonald and Rebecca. In defense of the modern tragedy, Dawson, Justin and Ben were weak in their arguments, but quite strong in fallacies and jokes towards the opposing girls. Opening the debate with flattery to the judges, Seth, Colton and Logan, the affirmative team was interrupted by the girls who took off their sweaters to reveal shirts for the judges. Unfortunately, however, interruptions were not allowed during the debate. Justin went on to explain how modern tragedy fits today’s society better, however there was some contradiction present in his argument.
The offensive side came strong into their argument with Stephanie Boucher defining what exactly can be considered tragedy. Describing what the main character must be like and giving a solid base for their point of view there was a lot of information to contain. She went on to explain why people might like Shakespearian tragedy better but had to be cut short as her argument would have gone over the time limit. Ben began the rebuttal by calling a fallacy, ‘appeal to boredom’ and although not considered a true fallacy, it still got a lot of laughter from the crowd, and it no doubt appealed to the judges.
Stephanie showed she was not at all fazed by the opposition as she reminded everyone what tragedy was, and gave some good insight into both Hamlet and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Even if there was a lot of talking going on, one can’t help but agree how Shakespearian tragedy better fits the definition. The rebuttal came and the affirmative team argued that modern tragedy was something new, original; something people would like better. There was, however, some confusion as the speaking got too quick to be completely audible. Apparently everyone is also so civilized blood and guts are not wanted in stories and such anymore; the negative side pointed out that we clearly would not have horror movies and the likes if that were the case. The debate points are slowly dwindling from the negative side now, (the affirmative having been somewhat dwindling the entire time.)
As a defense, blonde jokes were sent at the offensive team, who all happened to be blonde. During the free-for-all a lot of the audience joined in during this time, but the person who was heard the most was still Stephanie Boucher. It was also stated by the negative team that the affirmative side did not have much to argue, as they were making more jokes that valid arguments. Fairly and inarguably, the negative side won: they didn’t have too many point losses, and they definitely had the better arguments.
Could Shakespearian Tragedy Be Better Than Modern Tragedy?
In the early afternoon of December 11th, it was proven that newer isn’t always better; the modern tragedy was declared second best to its Shakespearian counterpart in what turned out to be a strong and loud offense from Steph Boucher, Stephanie MacDonald and Rebecca. In defense of the modern tragedy, Dawson, Justin and Ben were weak in their arguments, but quite strong in fallacies and jokes towards the opposing girls. Opening the debate with flattery to the judges, Seth, Colton and Logan, the affirmative team was interrupted by the girls who took off their sweaters to reveal shirts for the judges. Unfortunately, however, interruptions were not allowed during the debate. Justin went on to explain how modern tragedy fits today’s society better, however there was some contradiction present in his argument.
The offensive side came strong into their argument with Stephanie Boucher defining what exactly can be considered tragedy. Describing what the main character must be like and giving a solid base for their point of view there was a lot of information to contain. She went on to explain why people might like Shakespearian tragedy better but had to be cut short as her argument would have gone over the time limit. Ben began the rebuttal by calling a fallacy, ‘appeal to boredom’ and although not considered a true fallacy, it still got a lot of laughter from the crowd, and it no doubt appealed to the judges.
Stephanie showed she was not at all fazed by the opposition as she reminded everyone what tragedy was, and gave some good insight into both Hamlet and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Even if there was a lot of talking going on, one can’t help but agree how Shakespearian tragedy better fits the definition. The rebuttal came and the affirmative team argued that modern tragedy was something new, original; something people would like better. There was, however, some confusion as the speaking got too quick to be completely audible. Apparently everyone is also so civilized blood and guts are not wanted in stories and such anymore; the negative side pointed out that we clearly would not have horror movies and the likes if that were the case. The debate points are slowly dwindling from the negative side now, (the affirmative having been somewhat dwindling the entire time.)
As a defense, blonde jokes were sent at the offensive team, who all happened to be blonde. During the free-for-all a lot of the audience joined in during this time, but the person who was heard the most was still Stephanie Boucher. It was also stated by the negative team that the affirmative side did not have much to argue, as they were making more jokes that valid arguments. Fairly and inarguably, the negative side won: they didn’t have too many point losses, and they definitely had the better arguments.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Poem Analysis and Biblio.
Here it is. I think it's going up on Kelsey's blog as well, but I thought I'd post it here too.
Those Dancing Days Are Gone by W.B Yeats.
The theme in the poem Those Dancing Days Are Gone by William B. Yeats can be interpreted in more way than one; but however one chooses to interpret, it will always have some similarities to what Yeats was talking about. For example, there is the obvious message that something happy or perhaps celebratory is now gone. In this case what is gone is someone’s wife and children. In the first verse it says ‘wrapping that foul body up in as foul a rag:’, which would be the body being wrapped up after death. This could also be looked at as a woman who has lost the youngness of her life. The young days of dancing and fun have disappeared and now she has to work and have responsibilities.
There is a flaw though to this latter interpretation, as in the second verse it says how ‘the children he gave, are somewhere sleeping like a top under a marble flag?’ A marble flag could be a gravestone; suggesting that her children are dead as well as her. The last part of the sentence is also a rhetorical question which enables the reader to think even more about what point is being conveyed.
The rhyming scheme is, as in almost all Irish poetry, a basic pattern of: ABABCDCD. The Irish poets were not ones to come up with new concepts for poetry, and Those Dancing Days Are Gone is no exception to that rule. The use of allusions is present in the poem, ‘I carry the sun in a golden cup, the moon in a silver bag’ is referring to, as is no surprise in Irish poetry, (especially from Yeats) a myth from the Irish. This is also repetition—those two lines show up at the end of every verse.
Notice as well that the sun, “in a cup” which is open at the top, while a “silver bag” would be closed, and not necessarily letting light out. Hiding the sad feelings, letting the happiness show through. This is not necessarily the actual meaning; however one could quite well interpret it as this. In this poem, there is not a lot of imaging using comparisons, but rather ideas are written to mean just what the words say. This is again something typical to Irish poetry; although there can be an underlying meaning as well.
The third and final verse is written about the burial; the lines of ’a man may put pretence away who leans upon a stick’ has short alliterations which when reading, help the poem flow better. This verse also talks about someone who takes care of the burial, perhaps, of people. He would be someone who might lean upon a stick—or a shovel, and to him it would not matter who he was burying.
Altogether the poem Those Dancing Days Are Gone fashions a sad yet optimistic story that does show how to someone, those dancing days really are gone.
W.B Yeats bibliography.
http://www.poetry-archive.com/y/yeats_w_b.html
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/wbyeats.htm
http://www.online-literature.com/yeats/
http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/william_butler_yeats/poems/10324
Those Dancing Days Are Gone by W.B Yeats.
The theme in the poem Those Dancing Days Are Gone by William B. Yeats can be interpreted in more way than one; but however one chooses to interpret, it will always have some similarities to what Yeats was talking about. For example, there is the obvious message that something happy or perhaps celebratory is now gone. In this case what is gone is someone’s wife and children. In the first verse it says ‘wrapping that foul body up in as foul a rag:’, which would be the body being wrapped up after death. This could also be looked at as a woman who has lost the youngness of her life. The young days of dancing and fun have disappeared and now she has to work and have responsibilities.
There is a flaw though to this latter interpretation, as in the second verse it says how ‘the children he gave, are somewhere sleeping like a top under a marble flag?’ A marble flag could be a gravestone; suggesting that her children are dead as well as her. The last part of the sentence is also a rhetorical question which enables the reader to think even more about what point is being conveyed.
The rhyming scheme is, as in almost all Irish poetry, a basic pattern of: ABABCDCD. The Irish poets were not ones to come up with new concepts for poetry, and Those Dancing Days Are Gone is no exception to that rule. The use of allusions is present in the poem, ‘I carry the sun in a golden cup, the moon in a silver bag’ is referring to, as is no surprise in Irish poetry, (especially from Yeats) a myth from the Irish. This is also repetition—those two lines show up at the end of every verse.
Notice as well that the sun, “in a cup” which is open at the top, while a “silver bag” would be closed, and not necessarily letting light out. Hiding the sad feelings, letting the happiness show through. This is not necessarily the actual meaning; however one could quite well interpret it as this. In this poem, there is not a lot of imaging using comparisons, but rather ideas are written to mean just what the words say. This is again something typical to Irish poetry; although there can be an underlying meaning as well.
The third and final verse is written about the burial; the lines of ’a man may put pretence away who leans upon a stick’ has short alliterations which when reading, help the poem flow better. This verse also talks about someone who takes care of the burial, perhaps, of people. He would be someone who might lean upon a stick—or a shovel, and to him it would not matter who he was burying.
Altogether the poem Those Dancing Days Are Gone fashions a sad yet optimistic story that does show how to someone, those dancing days really are gone.
W.B Yeats bibliography.
http://www.poetry-archive.com/y/yeats_w_b.html
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/wbyeats.htm
http://www.online-literature.com/yeats/
http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/william_butler_yeats/poems/10324
Monday, December 15, 2008
Activiy 1.7
Activity 1.7
Hamlet’s motivation for his transformations is mainly that of his desire to avenge his father, as the ghost asked him to. His anger from other people’s reactions and choices of what to do after King Hamlet’s death frustrate him, and madden him. When this madness it truly insane, or simply just anger is not clear. His seems to become harsher towards people, less forgiving and more bloodthirsty. His appearance seems to change less, however from seeing the ghost, he becomes pale, and his hair stands on end. The well known quote “you look like you’ve just seen a ghost!” fits into this very well.
Hamlet’s transformations are believed to be madness by all of those closest to him. Polonius believes that he has found the reason for his madness—not the fact that his father has died and his mother remarried so soon, but instead it’s that he’s deeply and madly in love with Ophelia. He’s concentrating completely on her, writing her poetry and love letters. Ophelia’s unsure reaction must be part of the cause as well. Ophelia herself seems a bit fearful of Hamlet’s transformations. She’s not comfortable with his maddened nature. She believes that he is mad in some way or another. Horatio may be the one person who does not believe Hamlet to be mad. He sticks by him through the whole changes that Hamlet makes, and seems to respect him quite a bit. In return, Hamlet also always shows Horatio more respect that other people close to him.
Gertrude does not like the transformations, and is worried that her son is truly going mad. She tries to find out what its wrong many ways, and always tries to talk with him about it. Hamlet however, pushes her away, and she is somewhat fearful of him because of it.
Hamlet’s motivation for his transformations is mainly that of his desire to avenge his father, as the ghost asked him to. His anger from other people’s reactions and choices of what to do after King Hamlet’s death frustrate him, and madden him. When this madness it truly insane, or simply just anger is not clear. His seems to become harsher towards people, less forgiving and more bloodthirsty. His appearance seems to change less, however from seeing the ghost, he becomes pale, and his hair stands on end. The well known quote “you look like you’ve just seen a ghost!” fits into this very well.
Hamlet’s transformations are believed to be madness by all of those closest to him. Polonius believes that he has found the reason for his madness—not the fact that his father has died and his mother remarried so soon, but instead it’s that he’s deeply and madly in love with Ophelia. He’s concentrating completely on her, writing her poetry and love letters. Ophelia’s unsure reaction must be part of the cause as well. Ophelia herself seems a bit fearful of Hamlet’s transformations. She’s not comfortable with his maddened nature. She believes that he is mad in some way or another. Horatio may be the one person who does not believe Hamlet to be mad. He sticks by him through the whole changes that Hamlet makes, and seems to respect him quite a bit. In return, Hamlet also always shows Horatio more respect that other people close to him.
Gertrude does not like the transformations, and is worried that her son is truly going mad. She tries to find out what its wrong many ways, and always tries to talk with him about it. Hamlet however, pushes her away, and she is somewhat fearful of him because of it.
Activity 1.5
Activity 1.5
Thesis statement: Gertrude does everything she does because she loves her son, Hamlet, and wants to help him; nothing is done without consideration for him in one way or another.
Marrying Claudius right away would ensure she still has some power, to keep her son safe and perhaps next in line for the throne. Hamlet believes she’s done something awful by marrying Claudius, however she doesn’t see it that way.
“What have I done, that thou darest wag thy tongue
In noise so rude against me?” (III. iv. 14-51)
Gertrude truly sees what she’s done as something good for Hamlet.
Gertrude is heartbroken to see her son acting as madly and angry as he does. She wants only to help him be happy again.
“‘Forgive me this my virtue, For in the fatness of these pursy times Virtue itself of vice must pardon beg, Yea, curb and woo for leave to do him good.’
‘O Hamlet, thou hast cleft my heart in twain.” (III. iv. 147-202)
Hamlet here is still explaining how angry he is, and why, and she sees his point of view, and is very hurt. She didn’t ever mean to hurt him as she accidentally did. Gertrude even asks her son for his opinion on how to talk to Claudius after her meeting with Hamlet.
“‘The death I gave him. So, again, good night. I must be cruel only to be kind. Thus bad begins and worse remains behind. One word more, good lady—’
‘What shall I do?’” (III. iv. 147-202)
She goes along with the plan Claudius created that would go on after the play, to find out what was bothering Hamlet. She could have done this for the sake of her son, not for the sake of Claudius.
She agreed to talk to Hamlet in her room after the play, hoping to learn what was bothering him so. Was it really the fact she had married so soon, or something else? But she cared enough about her son to do this for him.
(Cannot find the example in the text I wanted to use, really sorry.)
Thesis statement: Gertrude does everything she does because she loves her son, Hamlet, and wants to help him; nothing is done without consideration for him in one way or another.
Marrying Claudius right away would ensure she still has some power, to keep her son safe and perhaps next in line for the throne. Hamlet believes she’s done something awful by marrying Claudius, however she doesn’t see it that way.
“What have I done, that thou darest wag thy tongue
In noise so rude against me?” (III. iv. 14-51)
Gertrude truly sees what she’s done as something good for Hamlet.
Gertrude is heartbroken to see her son acting as madly and angry as he does. She wants only to help him be happy again.
“‘Forgive me this my virtue, For in the fatness of these pursy times Virtue itself of vice must pardon beg, Yea, curb and woo for leave to do him good.’
‘O Hamlet, thou hast cleft my heart in twain.” (III. iv. 147-202)
Hamlet here is still explaining how angry he is, and why, and she sees his point of view, and is very hurt. She didn’t ever mean to hurt him as she accidentally did. Gertrude even asks her son for his opinion on how to talk to Claudius after her meeting with Hamlet.
“‘The death I gave him. So, again, good night. I must be cruel only to be kind. Thus bad begins and worse remains behind. One word more, good lady—’
‘What shall I do?’” (III. iv. 147-202)
She goes along with the plan Claudius created that would go on after the play, to find out what was bothering Hamlet. She could have done this for the sake of her son, not for the sake of Claudius.
She agreed to talk to Hamlet in her room after the play, hoping to learn what was bothering him so. Was it really the fact she had married so soon, or something else? But she cared enough about her son to do this for him.
(Cannot find the example in the text I wanted to use, really sorry.)
Activiy 1.6 (No, they're not in order.)
Activity 1.6
Hamlet is securely past the first level of Maslow’s Hierarchy. We notice that he’s striving for revenge and focused on those psychological needs that he’s trying to fulfill. For much of the play he is trying to discover whether the ghost of his father was telling the truth about his death, or if he was just a hallucination. This would be listed under the highest level on Maslow’s Hierarchy, the ‘acceptance of facts’. Once this need has been met, Hamlet moves onto his next psychological need: avenging his father, by killing his uncle, Claudius. This need, however is temporarily abandoned when Claudius sends him away to England. His needs are lowered to a more basic level, (the second lowest level, to be exact) which is simply to survive and escape from certain death. Arriving back in Denmark, Hamlet resumes his plans for avengement, climbing higher on the Hierarchy.
One interesting thing about Hamlet is that he never seems to need to meet anything on the fourth level of the Hierarchy: esteem. His respect of and for others seems to either always be there for certain people. But for others—even when Hamlet is focused on the highest level—he shows little respect ever. He never acts as if he lacks confidence, and his self-esteem looks to be anywhere but low. It’s interesting, because though someone can jump back and forth on the levels if it’s required for them, Hamlet almost can be considered someone who almost cannot be ranked. There are levels that he doesn’t seem to ever try to achieve, some which he has little difficulty with, and some which are seemingly combined.
Hamlet is securely past the first level of Maslow’s Hierarchy. We notice that he’s striving for revenge and focused on those psychological needs that he’s trying to fulfill. For much of the play he is trying to discover whether the ghost of his father was telling the truth about his death, or if he was just a hallucination. This would be listed under the highest level on Maslow’s Hierarchy, the ‘acceptance of facts’. Once this need has been met, Hamlet moves onto his next psychological need: avenging his father, by killing his uncle, Claudius. This need, however is temporarily abandoned when Claudius sends him away to England. His needs are lowered to a more basic level, (the second lowest level, to be exact) which is simply to survive and escape from certain death. Arriving back in Denmark, Hamlet resumes his plans for avengement, climbing higher on the Hierarchy.
One interesting thing about Hamlet is that he never seems to need to meet anything on the fourth level of the Hierarchy: esteem. His respect of and for others seems to either always be there for certain people. But for others—even when Hamlet is focused on the highest level—he shows little respect ever. He never acts as if he lacks confidence, and his self-esteem looks to be anywhere but low. It’s interesting, because though someone can jump back and forth on the levels if it’s required for them, Hamlet almost can be considered someone who almost cannot be ranked. There are levels that he doesn’t seem to ever try to achieve, some which he has little difficulty with, and some which are seemingly combined.
Activiy 1.3
Activity 1.3
Reality known:
The play takes place in Denmark.
King Hamlet has died.
The queen, Gertrude has remarried to Claudius, the late King’s brother.
Hamlet discovers that Claudius murdered King Hamlet.
Hamlet is considered by some to be insane.
Hamlet murders Polonius.
Ophelia becomes depressed and goes mad.
Hamlet is sent off to England.
Hamlet- Hamlet mourns the death of his father probably more than anyone. He believes it’s wrong for his mother to have married Claudius so soon after her husband’s death. He shows his anger of this towards both his mother and stepfather. Hamlet begins to act more and more crazy, deceiving people into believing he is—he himself denies that he is mad. When he is sent off to England, Hamlet eventually manages to escape and get back to Denmark.
Because of Hamlet’s knowledge that Claudius killed his brother, he becomes angry, and bent on killing Claudius. This becomes him main focus, and he seems impartial to everything else. This affects him in that his hated for his stepfather isn’t exactly hidden forever. He eventually dies from a plot created by Claudius.
Claudius- Claudius is one of the few people who know the truth about the death of his brother, King Hamlet. Claudius was actually the reason for his death; he poisoned the king. Claudius believes Hamlet to be insane. He does not understand all of the ranting he does, and with all of the traumatic events that had happened to Hamlet, Claudius believes them to have pushed his stepson over the edge. He first says he’ll send Hamlet off to England to be out of the way, and to help him get better from all of the troubles going on. He decides afterwards, once he knows that Hamlet is aware of his murderous acts, that he must kill him, to solve the problem.
Claudius feels guilty for the acts he’s committed, and asks forgiveness for his sins. Hamlet overhears this, and decides to wait to kill him, so that he will not have been forgiven of future sins. Claudius sends Hamlet off to England to be rid of him, as he causes a bit of trouble around the castle, and once the play has been acted, and he realized that Hamlet knew about King Hamlet’s murder, Claudius adds that Hamlet should be killed, and that knowledge die with him. By sending him away, Hamlet was able to come to some realizations, and when he came back to Denmark, he was determined even more to kill the King. He does succeed, probably partially due to the fact that Claudius tried to be rid him.
Gertrude- Gertrude is unaware that Claudius has killed her husband for the throne. She believes that his death was accidental. She chooses to marry her husband’s brother, for whatever her reasons may be, in her eyes, this could be the best thing for her to do. When Claudius tells her that he’s going to send Hamlet to England, in his best interest, Gertrude believes that it truly could help her son. She sees him as delusional, when he sees the ghost in her room, and she cannot. By sending him away, Gertrude feels that it’ll be the best thing to do. By the end of the play, Gertrude’s ignorance disperses and she finally sees the truth, which only happens as she is dying from the poison.
Ophelia- Ophelia loves Hamlet, but when his focus turns onto killing Claudius, and she sees him becoming full of what appears to be madness and rage, she fears him and what she believes he’s becoming. She also hears from people that Hamlet is mad, and that she must find out what the reason for it is. So she beings to see that he is crazy.
Between the torment of losing her lover, and the death of her father, Ophelia becomes very depressed from it all; falling into a state of madness as well, finally ending in death ( not concluded whether it was by accident, or suicide.)
Polonius- Polonius was probably blinded a lot for the love of his children, Laerites and Ophelia. When he sees that Hamlet is acting mad and may be a danger to his daughter, Polonius is willing to go along with Claudius’s plans to discover Hamlet’s cause of personality change. Along with the fact he feels he must follow the king’s orders, Polonius had many a reason to spy on Hamlet, which in the end caused his death.
Laerties- With the death of his father, Laerites thinks that Claudius is to blame, and focuses his anger and sorrow briefly on him. Claudius assures him this is not the case, and blames Hamlet for everything. When Hamlet returns to Denmark, Laerties has accepted the plan to kill him. While Laerites does indeed manage to hit Hamlet with a strike that will kill him, Hamlet also is able to do the same to Laerties.
Journal Reflection.
The family unit in society is so very important. In Hamlet, it’s visible that the royal family, who very little acted like a ‘family unit’ all turned against each other in one way or another. In the end, it ultimately resulted in the whole family dying from each other’s murderous plans. Polonius’s family, which was a more caring and close family, did as well die, however they did because they were trying to avenge, or to protect their family members. Without family units in society, people would not be able to learn the important lessons; society might be more separated.
Reality known:
The play takes place in Denmark.
King Hamlet has died.
The queen, Gertrude has remarried to Claudius, the late King’s brother.
Hamlet discovers that Claudius murdered King Hamlet.
Hamlet is considered by some to be insane.
Hamlet murders Polonius.
Ophelia becomes depressed and goes mad.
Hamlet is sent off to England.
Hamlet- Hamlet mourns the death of his father probably more than anyone. He believes it’s wrong for his mother to have married Claudius so soon after her husband’s death. He shows his anger of this towards both his mother and stepfather. Hamlet begins to act more and more crazy, deceiving people into believing he is—he himself denies that he is mad. When he is sent off to England, Hamlet eventually manages to escape and get back to Denmark.
Because of Hamlet’s knowledge that Claudius killed his brother, he becomes angry, and bent on killing Claudius. This becomes him main focus, and he seems impartial to everything else. This affects him in that his hated for his stepfather isn’t exactly hidden forever. He eventually dies from a plot created by Claudius.
Claudius- Claudius is one of the few people who know the truth about the death of his brother, King Hamlet. Claudius was actually the reason for his death; he poisoned the king. Claudius believes Hamlet to be insane. He does not understand all of the ranting he does, and with all of the traumatic events that had happened to Hamlet, Claudius believes them to have pushed his stepson over the edge. He first says he’ll send Hamlet off to England to be out of the way, and to help him get better from all of the troubles going on. He decides afterwards, once he knows that Hamlet is aware of his murderous acts, that he must kill him, to solve the problem.
Claudius feels guilty for the acts he’s committed, and asks forgiveness for his sins. Hamlet overhears this, and decides to wait to kill him, so that he will not have been forgiven of future sins. Claudius sends Hamlet off to England to be rid of him, as he causes a bit of trouble around the castle, and once the play has been acted, and he realized that Hamlet knew about King Hamlet’s murder, Claudius adds that Hamlet should be killed, and that knowledge die with him. By sending him away, Hamlet was able to come to some realizations, and when he came back to Denmark, he was determined even more to kill the King. He does succeed, probably partially due to the fact that Claudius tried to be rid him.
Gertrude- Gertrude is unaware that Claudius has killed her husband for the throne. She believes that his death was accidental. She chooses to marry her husband’s brother, for whatever her reasons may be, in her eyes, this could be the best thing for her to do. When Claudius tells her that he’s going to send Hamlet to England, in his best interest, Gertrude believes that it truly could help her son. She sees him as delusional, when he sees the ghost in her room, and she cannot. By sending him away, Gertrude feels that it’ll be the best thing to do. By the end of the play, Gertrude’s ignorance disperses and she finally sees the truth, which only happens as she is dying from the poison.
Ophelia- Ophelia loves Hamlet, but when his focus turns onto killing Claudius, and she sees him becoming full of what appears to be madness and rage, she fears him and what she believes he’s becoming. She also hears from people that Hamlet is mad, and that she must find out what the reason for it is. So she beings to see that he is crazy.
Between the torment of losing her lover, and the death of her father, Ophelia becomes very depressed from it all; falling into a state of madness as well, finally ending in death ( not concluded whether it was by accident, or suicide.)
Polonius- Polonius was probably blinded a lot for the love of his children, Laerites and Ophelia. When he sees that Hamlet is acting mad and may be a danger to his daughter, Polonius is willing to go along with Claudius’s plans to discover Hamlet’s cause of personality change. Along with the fact he feels he must follow the king’s orders, Polonius had many a reason to spy on Hamlet, which in the end caused his death.
Laerties- With the death of his father, Laerites thinks that Claudius is to blame, and focuses his anger and sorrow briefly on him. Claudius assures him this is not the case, and blames Hamlet for everything. When Hamlet returns to Denmark, Laerties has accepted the plan to kill him. While Laerites does indeed manage to hit Hamlet with a strike that will kill him, Hamlet also is able to do the same to Laerties.
Journal Reflection.
The family unit in society is so very important. In Hamlet, it’s visible that the royal family, who very little acted like a ‘family unit’ all turned against each other in one way or another. In the end, it ultimately resulted in the whole family dying from each other’s murderous plans. Polonius’s family, which was a more caring and close family, did as well die, however they did because they were trying to avenge, or to protect their family members. Without family units in society, people would not be able to learn the important lessons; society might be more separated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
